Ohio University’s president will not respond to an “unofficial” survey of faculty that expresses discontent with him and the university’s provost.
Faculty Senate recently conducted a survey asking Group I and II faculty members to rate President Roderick McDavis and Executive Vice President and Provost Pam Benoit in several areas. In all but one area for both Benoit and McDavis, the majority of faculty who responded to the survey said they were not satisfied with the performance of the university’s two highest administrators.
However, McDavis will not comment on or respond to the results of this survey because it is not a part of his formal evaluation, a process conducted each year by the Board of Trustees, said Becky Watts, McDavis’ chief of staff.
“He has no plans to speak with anyone about it, because it’s not a part of the Board of Trustees’ evaluation of him, and the president has to be very careful to only adhere to the processes the board has approved,” Watts said. “It’s fine for faculty (to put out a survey), but the president must be very cautious to make sure he only participates in the approved Board of Trustees evaluation of him.”
Watts added that the comprehensive review of McDavis, which will take place next year in preparation for the end of his contract, will allow for student and faculty input.
Faculty Senate passed a resolution in May 2008 that called for an annual evaluation of the president and provost. The first evaluation following this resolution, which was conducted in fall of 2009, evaluated only McDavis, as Benoit was a new employee at that time, said Joe McLaughlin, Faculty Senate’s chairman.
'LOSS OF GOOD HIGH LEVEL MANAGEMENT PEOPLE'
This year, senate asked 1189 Group I and II faculty members to evaluate the president and provost and received a 24 percent response rate for McDavis and a 21 percent response rate for Benoit.
The faculty members who evaluated McDavis gave him a majority positive response in only one area — promoting and supporting diversity as a core value among faculty. Of the faculty surveyed, 65 percent agreed with this statement.
“I think (diversity is) something President McDavis has talked about since he was hired,” McLaughlin said. “I think people see that as something central to what he’s trying to do. I think he communicates that well.”
McDavis’ second highest score came with a 24 percent vote that said he generates resources through fundraising to support the academic mission.
In the rest of the areas on the 10-question survey, a majority of faculty said they did not think McDavis performed effectively. These areas included responding to faculty input, fostering a campus climate that allows for faculty success, effectively managing university resources and setting appropriate priorities for the university.
When asked whether the president is an effective leader of OU, only 14 percent of surveyed faculty said they agreed.
Several survey comments acknowledged the difficult budgetary environment in which McDavis is working, and some expressed support for McDavis’ intentions.
“I fully believe that President McDavis believes he is sustaining Ohio University’s essential character and that he is dedicated to the institution,” one evaluator said.
Other comments expressed concerns that McDavis does not make himself available to faculty; that he does not manage university funds well; that he places too much value on athletics and that his leadership is contributing to OU’s loss of administrators.
This year, more than ten high-level administrators announced they were leaving the university.
“President McDavis’ practices are resulting in the loss of good high level management people at this university (provost, deans, VPs, etc.),” one evaluator said.
'AN ALMOST WILLFUL DISREGARD FOR FACULTY AND STAFF INPUT'
Of the faculty members who evaluated Benoit, a majority gave her low marks in all areas except for promoting diversity in hiring faculty — 35 percent of surveyed faculty said they could not evaluate Benoit in that area, while 27 percent of faculty said she was effective in the area of diverse hiring.
Positive scores were at or under 25 percent for the rest of the areas of evaluation for Benoit, which included setting appropriate goals for the university, promoting academic quality of undergraduate and graduate programs, seeking faculty input and responding to faculty concerns.
Benoit’s lowest score was a 13 percent vote for effectively maintaining and enhancing faculty salaries and benefits, and several comments questioned Benoit's use of faculty input.
“(Though) I believe it is long past time for change relative to how we do many things, much of that change that is being put forth is without shared governance of the faculty,” one evaluator said. “There seems to be an almost willful disregard for faculty and staff input. Though an effort seems to be made to ‘listen’, it is clear that nothing is being ‘heard’.”
Other comments expressed sympathy for what faculty described as a difficult position for the provost.
Of the faculty surveyed, 21 percent said they believed Benoit is an effective academic leader for OU.
“I welcome the opportunity to hear from faculty about areas for improvement,” Benoit said in a statement. “Whenever you lead a complicated organization with many different visions constructive feedback is always helpful.”
Benoit would not comment further, said Ann Fidler, Benoit’s chief of staff. Fidler added that anyone considering the survey responses should remember they represent only a portion of OU's faculty.
“Eighty percent of the faculty have not weighed in on the provost,” Fidler said. “I think that’s very important to keep in mind.”
The highest criticism that appeared in faculty comments came for the provost’s decisions regarding the merit raise that was distributed to faculty members in November.
“The biggest concern is the provost set limits on the colleges in terms of how many faculty were eligible to receive money from the merit raise pool; to my knowledge, that has never been done in the past here,” McLaughlin said. “(The merit pool criteria) happened without consultation with Faculty Senate, and I believe that was deliberate and calculated.”
'APATHY AND LOW MORALE'
Senate is working on a way to offer the survey online but has not done so yet. The fact that the surveys were submitted by mail and completed on paper might have contributed to the response rates, which McLaughlin said he had hoped would be higher.
“Faculty are very, very concerned about their anonymity, which makes the online stuff hard,” McLaughlin said. “I do, however, think (the low response rate) points to a level of apathy and low morale. I think it probably indicates that a lot of faculty have a ‘why bother?’ attitude, because it’s not going to have an effect.”
McLaughlin added he hoped this survey would result in a greater response from McDavis and Benoit to faculty concerns.
“I think faculty feel like they’ve been trying really hard for a number of years to provide constructive and intelligent advice on what should be the university’s priorities, and I think they do not feel they are being listened to sufficiently and that the president and the provost really don’t have their eyes on some of the things that are most important for the university,” McLaughlin said.
Read the full evaluation summaries below.
rm279109@ohiou.edu
@ThePostCampus
